The Seattle P-I hates dogs

Seattle Times publisher Frank Blethen may be our region’s most famous dog hater, but his colleagues over at the P-I don’t seem to possess much puppy love either, seeing fit to squander yet more precious column inches editorializing against dogs in bars and restaurants.

It probably says something about our legislators, and us, as a community, when we’re further along in the debate as to whether to let dogs into restaurants than we are with such issues as delaying the WASL until 2010 (ah, it’s only our education system, folks) and lowering the cap on payday loans from 391 percent down to 36 percent (the poor can wait another year). Clearly, those concerns aren’t as urgent as being able to take dogs to bars.

Or, maybe what this bill’s legislative progress says is exactly what the P-I’s editorial says by example — that it’s a helluva lot easier to encapsulate and move on a simple issue like dogs in bars than say… reforming education?

What exactly is the P-I suggesting? That the Legislature prioritize every issue in order of importance, and not move on down the list until the top-most issue is settled? If we had to wait until we reached a legislative consensus on reforming education before we moved on to any other issue, we might as well just disband the Legislature.

What a silly argument. At least as silly as the issue itself.

Share:

Related

Comments

Too bad the Democrats like payday lenders and 391% interest rates. Gregoire has gotten over $30,000 in campaign funds from payday lenders, who have also contributed heavily to key Democrat leaders in the legislature.

At least the U.S. Congress was able to pass legislation prohibiting payday lenders from charging more than 36% interest to military members and their families. And this was done when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by Bush.

I have said many times before that we should not have to rely on local levies to fund public schools. The state constitution requires local levies must be approved by 60% of the voters.

My proposal — outlaw local levies. The statutory authority for local levies can simply be eliminated. Raise the state property tax (or other state revenues) sufficiently to adequately fund public education for all school districts.

This proposal simply requires 50 representatives, 25 senators, and the signature of the Governor. If the Democrats were really serious about public education funding, they could accomplish this without a single Republican in the legislature having to vote for this, and without the people having to vote on this in November. In fact, all schools could be adequately and equitably funded in September 2007, when they open their doors for another school year.

I almost have to go with the PI on this one. Of course, we’re not going to solve everything in order of importance, but the dogs in bars thing looks trivial to the point of being silly. (Is there something about that issue that I’m missing?)

Oh, and Richard. We’ve all read it. Only one problem with your proposal. If we ever actually tried to do it, the Republican party would be the majority in both houses of the legislature by the very next session. Then they would immediately undo the whole thing.

Nice idea. Won’t fly. Now, if we could get both sides to agree to this, thereby preempting the huge ad blitz about the “biggest tax increase in Washington history” and the “power grab from Olympia”, then we might be able to make this happen.

Pope, I agree that we need to fully fund education on the state level, and not resort to local levys which create unequal funding and education levels in the state. I also don’t like parents voting against education funding generally, but paying thousands of dollars at booster club or PTSA auction in order to give their kids an added advantage over the others (see link below for how Bellevue High School parents are buying the best football coach possible):

But if we eliminate the levys, then our friend Tim will just keep trying to pass initiatives to cut taxes which will de-fund the state’s general education system. The result will be less money for students overall.

Fix the tax system first (get a state income tax to replace most of the sales tax & B&O tax), then eliminate the levys afterwards.

Let’s outlaw payday lenders. Yeah, that’s the ticket! The banks and credit unions can loan the poor folks the money. And if the lenders balk, let’s make a law forcing them to loan to the poor. Yeah, that’s it!!

“…it’s a helluva lot easier to encapsulate and move on a simple issue like dogs in bars than say… reforming education? ”

Gee, maybe that’s part of the reason we can never get anything done in this state. We try to do a comprehensive project, until it becomes a mammoth undertaking with at least SOMETHING in it which creates an objection by just about everyone. Kind of an “my plan or no plan” philosophy.

The result: take a look at the Viaduct/Tunnel debate – the default result will be “No Plan”, which is what I consider to be the “retrofit” or “re-build” options. Of course, there is always the REAL No PLAN, which would be to put it off until another legislative session. But Gregoire doesn’t want that – aside from federal funding issues, there is no way she (or any of the other state politicians) want to deal with this as an election-year issue in 2008.

Maybe if we can find a way to cut these issues like “education reform” and “transportation reform” into little, small, manageable pieces, we could make some progress politically?

I guess you would like to legalize heroin dealers and prostitution also, as well as eliminating the drinking age and smoking age? Not to mention eliminating the minimum wage and repealing all laws against discrimination. You want the free market to decide everything, right?

Somehow, I think the average amount of taxable real property per enrolled public school student is substantially higher in districts that are represented by Democrats, than in districts represented by Republicans. Especially with the defeat of numerous GOP legislators in east King County in recent years.

So the Republicans would benefit from full school property tax equalization, while the Democrats would suffer. This is a more reasonable explanation as to why this does not happen at the present time. And as to why the Democrats are attempting the diversion of a constitutional amendment that will make it easier to force really high local school levies in property-poor GOP-strong school districts with a simple majority public vote.

Oh, and you probably want to abolish public schools as well, along with all government taxes which support education in any way? Make it all a private enterprise, and for education to be available only to those children whose parents are fortunate enough to afford it, and responsible enough to spend the money on it for their children? Same thing for health care too, of course.

Speaking of the PI, does anyone else find Robert Jamieson as annoying as I do? On the Sonics gay-bashing owners he compares the dust up over their political views with specious arguments against political litmus tests:What next? People who get mad at Sonics co-owner Clay Bennett because he may not recycle?

If every company owner or board member across the Pacific Northwest were held to some ideological purity test, judged by a shifting litmus test of public peccadilloes, we’d all be screwed.

It could turn inane quickly: Does Mr. or Mrs. Corporate Muckety-muck support transsexual hemp farmers who use chemical-free makeup and orca-safe biofuel? Check.

Earth to Robert Jamieson: gay-bashing is bigotry, not supporting transsexual hemp farmers is, well, a ludicrous red-herring. And what’s with the negative vibe on the transsexual hemp farmers comment?

tedward at 13: The politics of a professional sports-team owner are irrelevent to the debate regarding the Sonics, EXCEPT that they are (a) donating large (well, huge) amounts of money to a particular political cause, and (b) they want the local taxpayers to subsidize their business. In effect, this amounts to a tranfer of taxpayer funds to lobby for a particular political agenda (not connected with the business of the team), with only a short stop for money-laundering purposes through the pockets of the team.

I don’t care what issue is involved, I find that outragious. It doesn’t matter to me whether they are giving the money to oppose homosexual marraige or abortion or to finance election campaigns for Democrats. When the new Sonics owners hold out their hats and expect money from the local taxpayers, they should expect that all their finances will become an issue open for examination and debate.

It reminds me of a trick DeLay used. He was instrumental in setting up a taxpayer-supported lobbying office in Washington D.C. for the purpose of “representing the State of Texas’ interests in the Capital”. Gee, silly me, I thought that was what the Congressmen from the state were supposed to do. Of course, the taxpayer funds from Texas were laundered through the Washington D.C. office, which then hired D. C. lobbying firms (can you say Abramoff?) who then – wait for it – donated money to Republican congressional campaigns and independent committees targeting Republican opponants. An interesting way to use the state treasury to fund your election campaing, what?

I never made the claim that Republicans might not benefit from an equalization of the tax base. My point is that the main benefit for them would be the talking points for the next election, which judging from their actions in the last election, they would use at every available opportunity, while making promises to undo this if elected.

This is one of those issues that needs to get both parties firmly committed before it can proceed. After some of the stunts that were pulled last time (the Speakers Roundtable was famous for this sort of thing), and, of course, the Republicans backing away from promises to support removing the supermajority if levy elections were moved to November, you’ll have to excuse the Democrats for being just a bit suspicious of anything coming from that side of the aisle.

Oh, and rhp6033

I can almost agree that the political donations of Mr. Bennett are irrelevant. Lots of companies with various government contracts donate to any number of campaigns.

The real problem with Mr. Bennett is that he wants the government to pony up for a HALF BILLION DOLLAR boondoggle, or he will take his (basket)ball and go home.

The half billion dollar basketball arena boondoggle would be just as bad if it was benefitting an ownership team that had never made any political donations to any candidate or ideological cause whatsoever.

Please Donate

I appreciate feeling appreciated. Also, money.

Currency:

Amount:

Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?

Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!

Search HA

Follow Goldy

HA Commenting Policy

It may be hard to believe from the vile nature of the threads, but yes, we have a commenting policy. Comments containing libel, copyright violations, spam, blatant sock puppetry, and deliberate off-topic trolling are all strictly prohibited, and may be deleted on an entirely arbitrary, sporadic, and selective basis. And repeat offenders may be banned! This is my blog. Life isn’t fair.